If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A community member needs help

I bring this to the attention of the general public here on OCDO in hopes that others may sympathize.

It's been over a year since the start of my legal troubles with my now ex-landlords. Starting in August of 2012, my landlords decided to start fighting me telling me that I couldn't have a gun in my apartment, legal or otherwise. After many months of disputes and posturing by both sides, I was finally evicted as of May 28th, 2013 and have since been homeless.

Now this was an illegal eviction. I at the time was receiving subsidized housing funded by the federal government (HUD). And per the Doctrine of unconstitutional-conditions, LINK government is barred from imposing a condition on the grant of a benefit requiring the waiver of a constitutional right. The government cannot condition a person's receipt of a governmental benefit on the waiver of a constitutionally protected right. In this case, the constitutional right is the 2nd Amendment and the benefit is the subsidized housing.

The issue in question is, considering the fact that the organization involved is a private organization and not an actual government entity, can they be held accountable? The answer is yes. Per 42 U.S.C. § 1983 LINK, commonly referred to as "section 1983" of the civil rights act...

"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

"under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia" has been held that even a private person or organization can be held liable for the deprivation of civil rights if that person or organization is acting under the authority granted to them by the government. Such is a private doctor contracted by the state to provide medical services to state prison inmates. Relevant to my issue, a private organization contracted by the state of Washington (through DSHS) to provide mental health services to the people of Pierce county and they are also contracted by the federal government to provide subsidized housing for people suffering from a disability and homelessness.

So lets recap... A private non-profit organization, contracted by both the state of Washington and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, to provide medical and housing related services to the general public, knowingly and willingly violated my constitutionally protected rights by demanding that I give up those rights in order to receive benefits provided by the government. When I refused, they forcefully removed me from my home by taking me to court. I now have an eviction on my record which has and will continue to bar me from obtaining housing anywhere else.

What proof do I have of these claims? I have every scrap of hard copy documentation from the entire affair. I have been in contact with lawyers regarding these issues and have been told that I have a very strong case. So what's the problem? I am a disabled individual, I suffer from both physical and mental disabilities. My mental disabilities are very controllable through medication, however, my physical disabilities are an entirely different matter. I receive Social security benefits as I am not able to work. I am however a full time college student at the age of 35 in hopes that I can acquire my 4 year degree in a new employment field so that I can obtain and maintain gainful employment.

What does this mean? I have very limited income. I cannot afford to hire a lawyer to represent me in a lawsuit against the offending party in this matter. This is why I am reaching out to the members here at OCDO. I have been in contact with SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) as well as the ACLU. If I can get the money together, there is a lawyer that is a member here on OCDO that said he could represent me.

So I put my pride aside and I humbly ask for any assistance that this community has to offer.

Armed and annoyingly well informed!

There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
2) Liberals are never satisfied.

...I have been in contact with lawyers regarding these issues and have been told that I have a very strong case...

If various attorneys say you have a "very strong case", why aren't they willing to pursue the matter on contingency? I suggest you contact the Legal Aid Society and/or the local bar association if no better resources are referred to you here.

If various attorneys say you have a "very strong case", why aren't they willing to pursue the matter on contingency? I suggest you contact the Legal Aid Society and/or the local bar association if no better resources are referred to you here.

I have been told that due to the state of the economy right now, no lawyers are taking contingency cases. One Lawyer told me that even though he has won cases for clients, the clients suddenly decide that they don't want to pay. I can understand his reasoning and I accept it. A 2nd lawyer who deals in civil rights matters has refused to take the case because there is an element involving landlord/tenant law that he is inexperienced with. A 3rd lawyer has said that he deals in firearms related cases but only in regards to criminal law and the restoration of rights.

This isn't a frivolous claim. I have been dealing with this issue and it has been covered in the Washington sub-forums. LINK

Armed and annoyingly well informed!

There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
2) Liberals are never satisfied.

I would suggest you contact one of many pro-2A national groups and explain this to them. NAGR, NRA, GOA, et al. Take the time to contact every single one of them.

A case similar to this popped up in Colorado where a gov subsidized housing tried to evict a disabled man from his apt for owning a gun. It made national news and in short order the group responsible was slapped pretty hard by the law. The guy is still in his apt. Coming to OCDO is a start maybe, but you're more likely to get help from a national organization.

I would suggest you contact one of many pro-2A national groups and explain this to them. NAGR, NRA, GOA, et al. Take the time to contact every single one of them.

A case similar to this popped up in Colorado where a gov subsidized housing tried to evict a disabled man from his apt for owning a gun. It made national news and in short order the group responsible was slapped pretty hard by the law. The guy is still in his apt. Coming to OCDO is a start maybe, but you're more likely to get help from a national organization.

no the disabled man went to the media and that very day the housing authority convened an emergency board meeting and voted for a resolution stating they would hire a different property management firm if the one that made the anti gun rule didn't back down.

Hey Grim, why don't you contact Jessie Jones?
if you're not familiar with King5, Jesse Jones is the Investigative News Reporter who does consumer protection and consumer issues. he recently got an airline to reimburse a man who's guns were stolen from baggage handling after they refused to pay for the lost guns.

no the disabled man went to the media and that very day the housing authority convened an emergency board meeting and voted for a resolution stating they would hire a different property management firm if the one that made the anti gun rule didn't back down.

Hey Grim, why don't you contact Jessie Jones?
if you're not familiar with King5, Jesse Jones is the Investigative News Reporter who does consumer protection and consumer issues. he recently got an airline to reimburse a man who's guns were stolen from baggage handling after they refused to pay for the lost guns.

And we wonder why so many from CO left this forum? Seriously, you are from Castle Rock, CO? I'm from Parker. 15 miles away from where this happened. The story broke by 9News on August 6th at 9pm. It started to gain traction on local boards around 12 hours later on the 7th. By around 11am on the 7th it was picked up by Colion Noir and hit the national circuits. At that point Mr. Noir offered to help pay for the man's legal fees. It didn't hit OCDO until noon on the 7th. By 1pm it was discovered that the property was owned by the local government and not the management company. Around 4 pm a nationally known lawyer offered to represent the man. By 5pm the Douglas county commission announced that an emergency meeting was planned for August 8th. But in the statement, they noted that the management company did not have the power to enact any new rules without consent of the commission. The Douglas County Housing Partnership, the group that maintains ownership held an emergency meeting on the 7th and agreed that they would not allow Ross management to enact the rule. That was around 10pm on the 7th (the next day after it got national attention). Of course these are all local Denver times, not Seattle time.

So basically, nothing you said was correct. Admittedly implying that the management was slapped by the law may have been misleading, but not technically wrong. They were bound by the rules of the DCHP which stated that they could not enact new policy without the approval of the DCHP. But, in a legal sense, they would have been up against the law had they continued to act.

Nope. I got as far as "subsidized housing" and stopped reading. I won't help someone suckle at the government teat.

If you were taking government money for the apartment, then I don't care why that arrangement was ended. I am just glad that you are not sucking up any more of my tax money.

IMHO your response to Grim_Night was assumedly honest, but unnecessarily harsh. Not all who take temporary government assistance are moochers, and without knowing the background story you imply that Grim_Night is a long-term practitioner of taxpayer abuse. I have no sympathy for those who abuse the government assistance programs - like 4th & 5th generation welfare frauds who have made "working the system" the only "work" they will do, and turning it into the family business. On the other hand, I do not rush to judgment of those who are involved for the first time. Trying to get his degree is an indication that he does not intend to milk the program, and that he has hopes of becoming self-sufficient once again. Just my 2¢ worth. Pax...

IMHO your response to Grim_Night was assumedly honest, but unnecessarily harsh. Not all who take temporary government assistance are moochers, and without knowing the background story you imply that Grim_Night is a long-term practitioner of taxpayer abuse. I have no sympathy for those who abuse the government assistance programs - like 4th & 5th generation welfare frauds who have made "working the system" the only "work" they will do, and turning it into the family business. On the other hand, I do not rush to judgment of those who are involved for the first time. Trying to get his degree is an indication that he does not intend to milk the program, and that he has hopes of becoming self-sufficient once again. Just my 2¢ worth. Pax...

Well, its nice that you have compassion for your fellow man. However, I think that the current systems don't work.

So I would support a 10 yr moratorium of any fed, state, local gov't assistance outside of SS (a program that people invested their own money into). That would be all: food stamps, medical, housing allowance, veterans benefits (other than for issues incurred from military service ie no education benies etc), and others.

IMHO your response to Grim_Night was assumedly honest, but unnecessarily harsh. Not all who take temporary government assistance are moochers, and without knowing the background story you imply that Grim_Night is a long-term practitioner of taxpayer abuse. I have no sympathy for those who abuse the government assistance programs - like 4th & 5th generation welfare frauds who have made "working the system" the only "work" they will do, and turning it into the family business. On the other hand, I do not rush to judgment of those who are involved for the first time. Trying to get his degree is an indication that he does not intend to milk the program, and that he has hopes of becoming self-sufficient once again. Just my 2¢ worth. Pax...

He may not be a moocher, but he was mooching. I don't care that the mooching was forcibly ended. I won't help it get restored. Moving on.

Sorites mooching, a heap of sand?

We agree that long term mooching is like a heap of theft from fellow man - at the point of the taxman's pistol no less.

If we remove one grain from the heap, is it still a heap of mooching? If we remove two instances of mooching, is it still a heap? When there are five grains remaining, is it still a heap of mooching? Four ... 3 ... 2 ... one mooch? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

There are housing rights organizations. Your case may not be as PC-enticing as a homosexual evicted because of their lifestyle, or an ex-felon denied housing based on their criminal record, but it does sound as if there was a violation of both regulation and rights.

Even with the economy in the toilet an attorney who sees a slam-dunk case would take it on contingency.

And if you are bound and determined to get other people to pay for your legal problem why are you coming to the limited audience at OCDO where you are getting the kind of grief you are getting? Why not go crowdsource this where the folks who seem to give money for any sob story are more likely to give you their money? (No, I'm not saying yours is a "sob story" - I'm saying that lots of folks who donate to crowdsourcing pleas seem to be not too discriminating.)

stay safe.

"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
----Allahpundit

I made this thread at the suggestion of a representative from SAF. But it seems that for the most part, it was a waste of time. It seems that some people here are only interested in protecting and defending rights when it has a direct impact on themselves and no-one else. Is this really how you want others to view this "community"? Thanks to those that have tried to give useful information. To the rest, please read on.

I admit, I accepted assistance from the government because I didn't know where else to turn. I use to make $50,000+ a year actually working. But then I had a life altering disability hit me and I flat out could not do the same type of work or any work at all for that matter. Now, I can barely walk or even move some days because of physical disabilities. Is that my fault? Did I ask for it? Some claim I was and/or am a moocher. I say you are very wrong. I tried everything I could to avoid having to have tax payers support me. I have tried working, I have had many jobs. I'm in school right now in fact so I can obtain an education in a field that I may obtain employment where my disabilities won't hinder me. I'm doing it on my own dime. I'm taking out loans. Even I do finish school, I will be in debt up to my eyeballs. But that's the American dream right? But before you ask, no bank will lend to me so that's an option I can't use to obtain funding for my legal issues.

But back to the topic at hand. This is suppose to be a community where we look out for each other and the rights of others. But all I'm seeing is a few vocal people saying "If you can't do it yourself, I sure as hell ain't helping you!" If that is the case, then why should anybody bother helping you either? Why should anybody here spend the time and effort to fight for your rights so that you have the right to carry a firearm in defense of yourself, your loved ones and your home? My rights were forcefully taken from me. I no longer have a home. Almost everything I own is sitting in a storage unit in boxes. I sleep on a couch of a friend. I'm not on the lease and the landlord of my friend knows I cannot be put on the lease because I have an eviction on my record. Why do I have an eviction? ONLY because I own a gun and refused to let somebody strip me of my right to own one for my defense.

But you go right ahead and call me a moocher. Call me whatever names you want. When and if the time comes for you to need help, lets see if others come to your aid.

Armed and annoyingly well informed!

There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
2) Liberals are never satisfied.

meh. Had you been kicked out of a place you were paying for, I'd've cared. But you don't have a "right" to live in a place on my dime. So this ain't a "rights" issue. It is an entitlement issue, and I don't give a crap about someone losing entitlements. You don't like that? meh.

Oh, and I have no problem with "others coming to [one's] aid." That would be a voluntary bit of charity. Mooching involves the forcible taking of my money to give to another. That ain't charity, and I detest it.

BTW, I give almost as much in true charity as the government forcibly removes from me that you seem to think would be someone coming to the aid of another. To me, that is warped thinking.

meh. Had you been kicked out of a place you were paying for, I'd've cared. But you don't have a "right" to live in a place on my dime. So this ain't a "rights" issue. It is an entitlement issue, and I don't give a crap about someone losing entitlements. You don't like that? meh.

Oh, and I have no problem with "others coming to [one's] aid." That would be a voluntary bit of charity. Mooching involves the forcible taking of my money to give to another. That ain't charity, and I detest it.

BTW, I give almost as much in true charity as the government forcibly removes from me that you seem to think would be someone coming to the aid of another. To me, that is warped thinking.

I was paying... You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I was paying based on my income. The apartment rented for about $400 a month and I was paying over half of that out of my own pocket... just like I'm paying for my education out of my own pocket.

But none of this matters one way or the other. I have seen your world view and it's all about how the world has an effect on you. You don't care about anybody bot yourself. So I ask nicely... from this point on, keep your comments to yourself regarding this specific topic. If you have nothing to offer then kindly butt out.

Armed and annoyingly well informed!

There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
2) Liberals are never satisfied.

Stop playing games. You weren't paying for it. You were paying for part of it. WE were being forced to pay for the rest of it. Again, that ain't charity. It ain't "others coming to your aid." It is robbery.

So when circumstances stop you from contributing to the robbery, you get no sympathy from me. None.

Education not all that it's cracked up to be?

Originally Posted by Grim_Night

I made this thread at the suggestion of a representative from SAF. ... I'm in school right now in fact so I can obtain an education in a field that I may obtain employment where my disabilities won't hinder me. I'm doing it on my own dime. I'm taking out loans...

This thread might have gone differently had that and the name of someone we recognize at SAF been mentioned at the outset. Now it appears as self-serving adhockery. Be that as it may, education may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Here is another notorious community member underemployed.

Originally Posted by MKEgal

Bovine feces!
I'm looking at maybe not being able to pay my bills this month (and, of course, any more in the future), which will lead to forclosure on the house, repossession of the car, etc.
I've been looking for work off & on for at least 3 years. (I go in spurts, buckling down and applying to any job I think I can do, then getting discouraged by the rejections.)
I've been to almost every job seminar presented by the state's Workforce Development Center.
I've been taking training in Word & Excel, to learn things I didn't know before. Will start the intermediate tutorial this week.
I have degrees, I have experience, I have the strong desire to earn money.
What I don't have is a job.
I've had one interview, by phone, which lasted 4 minutes and we didn't discuss the job at all. He wanted to know what I'd been doing while unemployed.
Duh... looking for work! (No, I didn't say that.)
When I said something wrong (no idea what), he said I wasn't right for the job. Since we hadn't discussed the job or reviewed my qualifications, I don't know how he came to that conclusion, but he lost a great asset.
I've even started looking at unskilled entry-level scut work, stuff I'm licensed to do but physically cannot right now.

I think that she strikes to the heart of the issue with a "strong desire to earn money" rather than a strong desire to work.

Stop playing games. You weren't paying for it. You were paying for part of it. WE were being forced to pay for the rest of it. Again, that ain't charity. It ain't "others coming to your aid." It is robbery.

So when circumstances stop you from contributing to the robbery, you get no sympathy from me. None.

It's interesting... Charity is what should be used, morally, and focused on to provide these services and utilities to those in need, yet people believe that needs won't be met without force and taxation being entered into the equation, and so they implement these government programs to provide for the needs, and then the government programs inevitably fail in one way or another (temporary government shutdown, discrimination [how ironic is that...], system abuse, inadequate management, the list goes on and on), and people immediately fall back to charity. Charities picked up slack during the government shutdown, people come to charities or ask for charity when they lose government funding for food, housing, retirement, etc. etc. etc.

That being said, here is my problem with OP. He's continuing to pursue use of the immoral, broken system, as opposed to finding another way to provide for himself - even through something like charity. He's asking for charity to reestablish his dependence on the broken charity-substitute, when he should perhaps instead be asking for charity to help him get off the government system, which has just royally screwed him over and has now literally left him on the street.

The thing about charity is that it requires those that receive it to be grateful and to work not to need it. When we are forced to pay to "help" others, there is no requirement for gratitude and no expectation to get off the dole. It is self-perpetuating. The dole also encourages abuse. Note how some people don't care about the abuse mentioned in Walmart thread. With charity, abuse almost always results in the end of the charity.

While it could be argued that taking care of the "less fortunate" in not a function of any level of government, it explicitly is NOT a function of the federal government.